More of Chuck Hagel's Past Arrives to Haunt Him

Source: Advocate

The White House would like to leave what happened a decade and a half ago in the past. But now more of Defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel's "insensitive" comments have surfaced.

Hagel apologized in December after the Human Rights Campaign and others complained about an interview in which he claimed James Hormel was too "aggressively gay" to become U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. Hagel said, "My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive," and "they do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record."

Now Talking Points Memo has found more of the Omaha World-Herald's interview with the then-freshman Republican senator. In it, Hagel tells his home state newspaper that Hormel's appearance at a gay pride parade in San Francisco meant he was "anti-Catholic."

This was the same argument being made against Hormel's nomination by Arkansas Republican Tim Hutchinson. Videotape had surfaced of Hormel laughing as the men of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence marched by wearing their nun outfits. Hutchinson used the video as part of public campaign that cast Hormel as an anti-Catholic being sent to a predominantly Catholic country. Hormel had already been attacked by the religious right as a potential pedophile sympathizer because of books found at the Hormel Gay & Lesbian Center at the San Francisco Public Library.

3. So...he didn't care so much that Hormel was gay, but that Hormel had mocked

Catholics at a gay pride parade (or at least appeared to) and they all had some sort of problem with the gay/lesbian library that Hormel founded. Huh. He had voted for Hormel in committee, and then changed his mind after the tape came out. Sounds like Chuck bought into a pile of bullshit right there.

11. The man voted for the Iraq War, buying into a pile of bullshit is his definining characteristic.

What this shows is that Hagel was just another Republican, saying the things the other Republicans said. Republicans are like that, when not voting for illegal wars, they are often seen attacking a minority group.

19. OK, he's just another Republican--for whatever that's worth--

But it does say in the article that Hagel did not object to Hormel because he was gay. Apparently it had more to do with the public (or Senate-generated) controversy than anything else--and he was afraid that would "cloud" the ambassadorship. That isn't really news. Hagel said dumb things, but it's hard to see how he's a raging homophobe here either. His big concern seems mostly the appearance of Catholic mockery. Why Josh Marshall doesn't actually give the exact quote here is beyond me--but they are releasing this interview piecemeal, over time, with no context. Because that's what you do when you are trying to smear someone.

20. . It just says other Republicans said the same thing.

Hagel's words were 'I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay'. Which was the Republican Party line at the time. Nowhere does this article say 'Hagel did not object to Hormel being gay'.
" Hagel said in the interview that Hormel had “very aggressively told the world of his gayness and the funding and all the things he’s been involved in. I think you do go beyond common sense there, and reason and a certain amount of decorum.”

So that word 'aggressively' again. Horrid. Hagel is saying that a gay person should keep quiet about how they are and what they do. It is extreme bigotry, no matter how you slice it.
The fact that you don't get that is what it is. " “very aggressively told the world of his gayness and the funding and all the things he’s been involved in." Yeah. That's what you are defending. For the sake of a Republican who voted for the Iraq War! It is what it is.
I don't dig Republicans, nor those who voted for the stupid, murderous illegal invasion of Iraq. Apparently some do. Sorry, was that too 'aggressive'?

21. I read it as, here's a guy who was already rejected for being gay for

the Fiji ambassadorship, and now there's controversy surrounding his homosexuality and his actions in a gay pride parade and his library, so why try another ambassadorship? That's still wrong and unfair of Chuck--and today it wouldn't matter. But that's not the same as just being against him because he happened to be openly gay--the concern seemed to be the attention drawn to Hormel's public activism and behavior. Either way, Hormel went on to be a good ambassador, and Hagel apologized and pledged to do better. And he's being quoted out of the context of the interview, repeatedly, to make him unacceptable to Democrats--to fight him from the left AND the right. I read blog comments from obvious Republicans who demand to know why Dems would support such a "homophobe"--that's pretty funny, really.

4. Same incident. 14 Years ago. Do people change in 14 years? We would need the exact QUOTE, not

3rd hand hearsay (TPM <--> Omaha World-Herald <-- Chuck Hagel) about what was meant, in order to determine exactly what Hagel said about Hormel.

Perhaps in 14 years Chuck Hagel has learned that Catholics laugh at nuns too, if they're funny. Being Catholic skeptical, if that's what Hagel is, could be considered a positive thing in the USA and somehow I doubt that Luxemborgians are as interested in this very old, very cold pizza as, say, some PNAC -ians are.

5. If this had happened recently it would bother me a lot more

I can forgive his words from 14 years ago, at that time nearly the entire country was homophobic. Our nation has come a long ways on gay rights since 1998. I think Hagel needs to know that this type of language is not acceptable, but I don't think his nomination should be opposed because of it. Don't Ask Don't Tell has been ended and I don't see Hagel using his DOD post to discriminate in any way, Obama would not allow it. I only liked Hagel on one issue when he was in the Senate, he was one of the only Republicans to turn against the war in Iraq. I think he will be more of a dove than previous Defense Secretaries, that is why I feel he is a good pick. The guy is no good on many other issues, but he is not nearly as militaristic as most nominees for the DOD position generally are and that is a good thing. Since the DOD job focuses exclusively on the military I can support his nomination despite my opposition to his stances in other areas.

9. I understand where you are coming from, but do you understand our point?

Yes, it was "14 years ago," however, his comments on DADT were NOT 14 years ago. He did not support it's repeal. Does that show "commitment" to the GLBT cause? His last year in office was 2008, when, like his other seven years, he received a ZERO percent rating from the Human Right's Commission (who, like the political 'insiders' they are, now "support" him). So, what proof do we, GLBT people and those who love us, he has changed? What can you offer in the way of proof he has "evolved"? As far as I am concerned, his apology was bullshit meant to appease the "right" people, and those people ARE NOT GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND/OR TRANSGENDERED!

So you know, I like a number of your comments on various things, so I am not attacking you or even your comments, you were just the last one I saw after reading several of these "Chuckie is a kool dude, bro" type BS articles. So, apologies.

12. I get your concerns completely

However, DADT has already been repealed.

As a defense secretary, he won't have any say outside the military domain. So the risk to GLBT causes from his power is close to nil. Ultimately, Obama and his AG will be the driving forces on these issues.

14. And you are also fine with his anti choice policy and votes to prevent military personnel from

accessing reproductive choices?
Also fine with putting one of the Senators who fell for the false WMD crap in charge of making more decisions about when to go to war? His track record on when to go to war is as bad as it gets. But you are also fine with putting a pro Iraq war voter in charge? I'm not really. It was a stupid and amoral choice they made. 23 Senators voted NO. Hagel voted Yes. But that's also super cool now?

13. Only by supporting a Republican anti gay, anti choice radical who supported the Iraq War

can one be a true Democrat in the eyes of the 'Chuckie is a kool dude' crowd.
It is interesting to check out what the pro Hagel folks posted about other Senators who voted for the Iraq War. Hillary, 'vote proves she is a war monger'. Hagel same yes vote 'proves he is anti war'.